Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Truth-Bringer, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. Dear Friend,

    If it were possible to put an Initiative on the Ballot to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts… would you want it?

    What if Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts had nearly a 50/50 chance of winning in 2008?

    What if this End the Income Tax Ballot Initiative could set in motion copycat Ballot Initiatives in 4 or 8 or 12 more states in 2010 and 2012?

    If this were the first step in dismantling Big Government in America, if you could help make it happen, would you want in?

    It is possible. But don't take our word for it.

    Just look over the amazing but true facts, figures, and information.

    Because when you learn what we've learned, you'll be as excited as we are.

    Three Surprising Massachusetts Vote Results

    1980 : Ronald Reagan for President won Massachusetts with 1,057,631 votes.

    1984 : Ronald Reagan again won Massachusetts – this time with 1,310,936 votes.

    2002 : Our first End the Income Tax Initiative in Massachusetts got 885,683 votes – 45.3%. We did it with volunteers, a small budget, and advertising spending of less than $89,000.

    All in Massachusetts. The state that elected and re-elected Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Mike Dukakis.

    What's going on? What was behind Ronald Reagan winning the Massachusetts Presidential vote twice? And what was behind our 45.3% vote to End the Income Tax?

    We'll tell you about that in just a couple of minutes. But first…

    Our Ballot Initiative Ends the Income Tax

    No tax on wages . No tax on interest or dividends . No tax on capital gains . No Income Tax .

    Our Small Government Act to End the Massachusetts Income Tax Ballot Initiative is a bold first step to make government small.

    Rest of article here

    9 Common Sense Reasons to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts

    They're right here

  2. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    No. It would probably have to be replaced with a regressive tax that puts a greater burden on those who can least afford it. That would cut into the health and happiness of the working class and provide only a slight immediate benefit to those who are rich enough to save a large amount of money and avoid paying as much sales tax (or whatever regressive tax, really) as a percentage of their income as everyone else. Of course, even that benefit would eventually be negated, as greater social inequality leads to more stress, and more stress leads to more health problems and crime, and the cost of such problems would inevitably put a greater burden on everyone.
  3. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Sales tax would be the logical replacement, even in a smaller government scenario. However, sales tax is regressive, as the poor spend nearly all their money, and thus all their income would be taxed rather heavily.
    1980: Jimmy Carter was one of the least popular presidents ever, and he was from the South.

    1984: Mondale barely won anything.

    Of course ending taxes are popular! This is quite obvious to anyone that's tried to get a tax increase for libraries or schools. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
  4. Not surprising, since you're a collectivist statist.

    No, it wouldn't have to be replaced with anything.

    ROTFLMAO!!! I see you missed the point entirely. The point is that a conservative Republican won against two liberal Democrats in Massachusetts - a state that is overwhelmingly liberal and overwhelmingly Democratic.

    Nor does it necessarily make it a bad idea. People have a right to keep the fruits of their labor. Individuals have an unalienable right to keep what they earn. That's what makes it a good idea - and a logical truth.
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I'm a collectivist by merely thinking that it isn't an a priori universal truth that governments should never interfere in an economy or tax folks? Alright. I've never seen the word used like that before though...

  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Our nation did just fine for 150 years without the IRS... i'm sure a state would do just as well.
  7. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    States can't vote to end the federal income tax. It's a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
  8. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I understand that. My point was I believe MA would do just fine without an income tax... as does FL.
  9. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    Oh State income tax! MA could vote to end that any time they like. A lot of states have no state income tax. Nevada doesn't. They get along just fine.
  10. Precisely. There is no need for an income tax.

    You're a collectivist because you espouse collectivism.

Share This Page